So, let's review:You know better than the Commission.You know better than RGRPC.You know better than Starfire.And now, apparently, the FRA inspector's approval isn't good enough for you?Robby, why don't you accept that just maybe you're not the smartest steam guy on the planet, and that just MAYBE someone else knows something you don't. If you're so scared, just don't visit the C&TS.Take your egomaniacal blusterings back to the Goat, and take Blanchard with you. We're sick of you whining Goat refugees trying to stir things up here. Reply Quote

Further your attacks on me there and now here do not meet the policies that you want of me.

Robby Peartree

Let's dredge up a 13-year old post on another forum. This is delving into madness, perhaps it's time for a mod to step in?

If you can not use the criteria of the "preserving Organization" as to why something is historic then what can you use. The CRRM set up this discussion by releasing their video as to what makes the 491 unique not I. They made claims of workmanship and other things I have a 1982 maxima with 400,000 miles on it. It is not in factory new condition due to use. We know that when you operate a piece of machinery particularly steam locomotives things have to be replaced. What happens to that workmanship then? Once you renew something where does it go? If the reasons we site for something being historic is x should we not work to preserve x if were in the preservation business?

Robby Peartree

Robby Peartree

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:20 am

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 amPosts: 626

bigjim4life

that discussion of that picture is just as relevant now as then. The mud packed side sheets had began to budge into the fireside of the firebox. Starfire Engineering told the C&TS Commission at a meeting held in Antonito that time frame that they needed to spend C&TS Commission money to go to South Africa to study water treatment. Never mind the operations both tourist railroad and not that use water treatment in boilers. If a locomotive were to suffer such a failure today with the potential of a blown side sheet who knows what would happen on many legal fronts. Ignoring serious boiler problems at any time is a practice none of us should tolerate nor should we allow time to cover such lessons only to be relearned.

Robby Peartree

Overmod

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:10 am

Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pmPosts: 1090

Just as a reference, because it took me considerable time with the NGRDF search engine to navigate to it, here is an URL to the thread in question:

Note that the very first post after the 'El Goaway' troll was critical of him:

Quote:

"Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black. Glad you know it all when we have a question, and that you hide your pompous attitude behind anonymity when you respond. What a hero."

after which you received what appeared to be a perfectly reasonable reply from Al P. and, just a couple of posts down,

Quote:

"The world needs more people like Robby who ask probing questions and raise concerns."

. Not to mention you had Matt Austin approve of your stand.

So I am not sure why you cherry-pick a rather obviously trolling remark from a not-particularly-respected person to remember After All These Years.

Yeah, it's important not to waste the historic fabric with improper or careless maintenance. I could invoke swimming-pool chemicals in a much more recent example, but don't intend to start a pointless recrimination-fest. But I'm not sure that this goes further than 'address the situation if mistakes are made' as opposed to 'you're going to ruin the engine progressively and effectively (from a historic standpoint) irremediably if you run it.'

Perhaps you can provide the precise thread(s) that discuss the historic value of the 'shop work' on 491 that would be lost in a restoration to operation, or subsequent operation, or why there cannot be some documentation of what was done, research into the methodology or procedures or equipment used, etc. to preserve that part of the legacy instead of making it 'absolute'. (In the interest of fair disclosure, I am upset that neither Mallard nor the surviving 05 class Hudson will be candidates for operating restoration, albeit for different reasons that no few here would find compelling.)

_________________R.M.Ellsworth

Last edited by Overmod on Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

John Cole

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:55 am

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:39 amPosts: 16

Robbie, I called one of the commissioners on the phone today who was there when Bob Wright called in the Starfire engineering and you sure pick and choose your 'facts', and spew they out about 15 years later as gospel when you think we can't go back and find out what REALLY HAPPENED.

FYI, the boiler treatment that caused the problem was long ago terminated, the water at all of the tanks have been tested, the water at Cresco tank is no longer used but in an emergency, the buldged mud rings were long ago repaired, and an aggressive boiler wash program has been in effect for over a decade.

You use one item to say in effect that all of the posters at the NGDF are foaming clowns because they don't agree with your point of view, well you better include Randy Hees, Earl Knoob, Kelley Anderson, Linn Modinger, John Bush Stathi Pappas, and others in your 'clown group' because they all post there too. (I have a feeling that each one of these guys has forgotten more about steam engines than you probably know).

It must be tough to have to be right all the time, the rest of us admit our mistakes and move on to learn something new, sheesh!

Robby Peartree

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:16 amPosts: 626

Mr. Cole

I stated that the Narrow Gauge discussion forum was not a credible source and I stand by that comment. I did not say anything negative about the particular individuals that you have accused me of doing.

Your source needs to learn the history of the commission meetings better even if they attended it. Here is Vernon Glovers report that was posted on the discussion forum that includes Starfires comments about water treatment.

Robby

tube sheet is being replaced. And, the tube swedger is being redesigned for more muscle. The dies are OK, it's the structure that needs more strength. Current locomotive work is handicapped by the lack of money from the EDA grant. 489 is being stripped down by the 487 maintenance team when not busy with daily work or running repairs.Andy Spurlock, Starfire Engineering, reported. Starfire provides engineering oversight and assistance on behalf of the C&TSRR Commission. Scope of work covers 484, 487, 488. Regarding 484, Starfire will provide an ASME certified welder for the firebox work. Later, Andy mentioned that he is updating the weld procedures for the shops. (This was an issue with FRA over the past year.) Starfire is also preparing drawings of boiler repair projects to satisfy FRA reporting requirements, and updating the FRA Form 4 calculations as needed. Starfire's analysis was that 484 will not likely be in service this season, a situation later confirmed by Commissioner Malnar on KFLH radio.Shop staffing was discussed, although not too clearly. The general thread was that the staff is called upon to support daily operations when needed, implying an effect on the rebuild processes. In connection with shop staffing, Starfire is recommending the hiring of a manager or supervisor to oversee projects and provide daily supervision. Railroad background and engineering capabilities would be required. This listener didn't hear any mention of increasing shop capacity with additional employees, overtime or second shift operations, addition of a production support staff, additional machine tools, or other such improvements. Commissioner Steve Malnar brought up the issue of expediting work on the locomotives. Spurlock mentioned greater emphasis on obtaining materials, sending work out to vendors, and improving and documenting shop processes. Spurlock mentioned the idea of having new K-36 boilers fabricated by welding. He noted that three firms did such work and that such boilers could be relatively inexpensive once the design work was completed. The cost of the design effort was not brought up. Sending an entire locomotive off-site for overhaul was not possible this year as all vendors are booked up. This question brought forth a discussion of the original concept behind the Antonito shop buildings. They were justified in part as a site for a vocational school emphasizing the skills involved in locomotive work. In true consultant style, Starfire suggested a water treatment engineering study, surveys and testing. Andy Spurlock mentioned going to several foreign countries for information and practice, but did not mention investigating water treatment on the D&S, GCRR, Heber Valley or Union Pacific lines, each rather more accessible. (GCRR, for example, uses an oxygen scavenger treatment by adding measured quantities of sulfide powder materials when water is taken into the locomotive tender.)COMMISSION -- Activities reported by Executive Director Richard Gomez included description of improvements at Osier, tours of the railroad by prospective bidders on the Colorado master plan project, and preparation of the pre-application for the third EDA trackwork grant. State matching money has already been appropriated for this. Future EDA grants may be at risk as a result of the drain on the federal budget by the Iraq war.COLORADO CONNECTIONS -- Affairs in Colorado were discussed in two significant respects. Parker and Hugh Fowler have taken roles as lobbyists for the C&TS with Colorado state government. They are gathering support for the railroad with the governor's office, legislature, and certain other boards and commissions. While appropriations may not happen, other sources include the gambling and lottery funds. Use of these kinds of funds must be requested by the C&TSRR Commission. Among the many details discussed was the intriguing note that no request was made for a C&TSRR appropriation for FY 2003. New Mexico Governor Richardson requested the C&TS Commission to look into the possibility of assuming Colorado's ownership interest in the railroad. Although widely reported in the press, it appears that little research toward that goal was actually accomplished. Strong statements of interest and support by Colorado sources were reported at the meeting by the Fowlers. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Turner moved that any further action on the matter be tabled indefinitely. The motion was approved unanimously.KIM SMITH FLOWERS -- The New Mexico Commission on the Status of Women awarded Kim the Trailblazer award, given to women who have excelled in non-traditional careers. The NM Commission on the Status of Women will honor three women and one organization as they celebrate women in the workforce at the annual Celebration of Achievements ceremony on Friday, September 19, 2003 at 2:00 PM at the Fine Arts Building at Expo New Mexico (formerly the NM State Fair). This event is free with the purchase of NM State Fair admission and open to the general public.LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE (LFC) MEETING -- The LFC held three days of hearings and meetings in Chama. One session was devoted to the C&TSRR. Commission Chair Steve Malnar and others presented reports on the railroad. Members of the LFC responded with statements of full support for the railroad and inquired as to its financial needs. Commissioner Malnar gave an estimate of $30 million in capital improvements over the next five years to fully rehabilitate the railroad. When asked about subsidies for operations, Malnar estimated that the railroad would need financial support for two more seasons. LFC Chairman Senator Ben Altamirano clearly stated that the LFC would support the railroad in its funding. He requested the railroad's plan for the future. The forthcoming Colorado Master Plan was mentioned, but otherwise neither the Commission nor the Rio Grande Railway Preservation Corporation could place a plan for locomotives or track or other development efforts before the LFC.

Donald Cormack

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:54 am

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:41 pmPosts: 120

Robby Peartree wrote:

Mr. Cole

I stated that the Narrow Gauge discussion forum was not a credible source and I stand by that comment. I did not say anything negative about the particular individuals that you have accused me of doing.

Your source needs to learn the history of the commission meetings better even if they attended it. Here is Vernon Glovers report that was posted on the discussion forum that includes Starfires comments about water treatment.

Robby

tube sheet is being replaced. And, the tube swedger is being redesigned for more muscle. The dies are OK, it's the structure that needs more strength. Current locomotive work is handicapped by the lack of money from the EDA grant. 489 is being stripped down by the 487 maintenance team when not busy with daily work or running repairs.Andy Spurlock, Starfire Engineering, reported. Starfire provides engineering oversight and assistance on behalf of the C&TSRR Commission. Scope of work covers 484, 487, 488. Regarding 484, Starfire will provide an ASME certified welder for the firebox work. Later, Andy mentioned that he is updating the weld procedures for the shops. (This was an issue with FRA over the past year.) Starfire is also preparing drawings of boiler repair projects to satisfy FRA reporting requirements, and updating the FRA Form 4 calculations as needed. Starfire's analysis was that 484 will not likely be in service this season, a situation later confirmed by Commissioner Malnar on KFLH radio.Shop staffing was discussed, although not too clearly. The general thread was that the staff is called upon to support daily operations when needed, implying an effect on the rebuild processes. In connection with shop staffing, Starfire is recommending the hiring of a manager or supervisor to oversee projects and provide daily supervision. Railroad background and engineering capabilities would be required. This listener didn't hear any mention of increasing shop capacity with additional employees, overtime or second shift operations, addition of a production support staff, additional machine tools, or other such improvements. Commissioner Steve Malnar brought up the issue of expediting work on the locomotives. Spurlock mentioned greater emphasis on obtaining materials, sending work out to vendors, and improving and documenting shop processes. Spurlock mentioned the idea of having new K-36 boilers fabricated by welding. He noted that three firms did such work and that such boilers could be relatively inexpensive once the design work was completed. The cost of the design effort was not brought up. Sending an entire locomotive off-site for overhaul was not possible this year as all vendors are booked up. This question brought forth a discussion of the original concept behind the Antonito shop buildings. They were justified in part as a site for a vocational school emphasizing the skills involved in locomotive work. In true consultant style, Starfire suggested a water treatment engineering study, surveys and testing. Andy Spurlock mentioned going to several foreign countries for information and practice, but did not mention investigating water treatment on the D&S, GCRR, Heber Valley or Union Pacific lines, each rather more accessible. (GCRR, for example, uses an oxygen scavenger treatment by adding measured quantities of sulfide powder materials when water is taken into the locomotive tender.)COMMISSION -- Activities reported by Executive Director Richard Gomez included description of improvements at Osier, tours of the railroad by prospective bidders on the Colorado master plan project, and preparation of the pre-application for the third EDA trackwork grant. State matching money has already been appropriated for this. Future EDA grants may be at risk as a result of the drain on the federal budget by the Iraq war.COLORADO CONNECTIONS -- Affairs in Colorado were discussed in two significant respects. Parker and Hugh Fowler have taken roles as lobbyists for the C&TS with Colorado state government. They are gathering support for the railroad with the governor's office, legislature, and certain other boards and commissions. While appropriations may not happen, other sources include the gambling and lottery funds. Use of these kinds of funds must be requested by the C&TSRR Commission. Among the many details discussed was the intriguing note that no request was made for a C&TSRR appropriation for FY 2003. New Mexico Governor Richardson requested the C&TS Commission to look into the possibility of assuming Colorado's ownership interest in the railroad. Although widely reported in the press, it appears that little research toward that goal was actually accomplished. Strong statements of interest and support by Colorado sources were reported at the meeting by the Fowlers. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Turner moved that any further action on the matter be tabled indefinitely. The motion was approved unanimously.KIM SMITH FLOWERS -- The New Mexico Commission on the Status of Women awarded Kim the Trailblazer award, given to women who have excelled in non-traditional careers. The NM Commission on the Status of Women will honor three women and one organization as they celebrate women in the workforce at the annual Celebration of Achievements ceremony on Friday, September 19, 2003 at 2:00 PM at the Fine Arts Building at Expo New Mexico (formerly the NM State Fair). This event is free with the purchase of NM State Fair admission and open to the general public.LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEE (LFC) MEETING -- The LFC held three days of hearings and meetings in Chama. One session was devoted to the C&TSRR. Commission Chair Steve Malnar and others presented reports on the railroad. Members of the LFC responded with statements of full support for the railroad and inquired as to its financial needs. Commissioner Malnar gave an estimate of $30 million in capital improvements over the next five years to fully rehabilitate the railroad. When asked about subsidies for operations, Malnar estimated that the railroad would need financial support for two more seasons. LFC Chairman Senator Ben Altamirano clearly stated that the LFC would support the railroad in its funding. He requested the railroad's plan for the future. The forthcoming Colorado Master Plan was mentioned, but otherwise neither the Commission nor the Rio Grande Railway Preservation Corporation could place a plan for locomotives or track or other development efforts before the LFC.

Mods,

Please kill this thread. It no longer serves any purpose. If I wanted to listen to the incoherent ramblings of a pontificating keyboard warrior, I would purchase as subscription to Trainorders.com.

DC

Rick Rowlands

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:25 am

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:29 pmPosts: 1357Location: Youngstown, OH

Donald Cormack wrote:

Mods,

Please kill this thread. It no longer serves any purpose. If I wanted to listen to the incoherent ramblings of a pontificating keyboard warrior, I would purchase as subscription to Trainorders.com.

DC

This reminds me of what is transpiring on college campuses these days, where people who do not like what is being said goes to a higher authority to prevent that speech from happening. It is not a road that we as a society should be going down.

There is no requirement that any person MUST read ANY thread. There is no fine of sanction imposed if a person does not read any thread.There is free will to skip over threads that are of no interest.There is no cost incurred to you if a post exists on a thread that you do not read.

The only way that our forum can survive as a marketplace of ideas is if we all mutually agree upon the above statements and do not attempt to force our personal wills upon the rest of us.

One last thing. EVERY THREAD DIES. Every thread has a life and when it reaches the point of exhaustion will die and slowly recede into the depths of the archives. There is no need to artificially kill something that will die on its own.

The interesting thing is the passion about the Colorado Narrow Gauge that has shown up in these comments. Some of these statements show how our personal passions can block objectivity. Some People have commented that what I am talking about is 15 years ago but the fact remains we are preserving items many times that lived their service life even longer than that and we need to consider the artifacts entire life. What decisions are we making now that not only send a message to others about our ethical standards but determine what those in the future get to see.

When EP&SW #1 was restored it was both a loss and an opportunity. The locomotive has been little touched by human hands over its life and that showed one part of its history. With the restoration it received was not a hole sale butcher job but a carefully worked out plan of what needed to be done. The locomotive looks different today from what we discovered about it in the process. It will never run again, It should not run again given the 6 inch crack in its original boiler. Replacing such would destroy a lot of the significant fabric. So it wont pull an polar express but it will still tell a story and more generations in my view will have a better view of the past because those involved in its restoration chose to spend time and careful analysis of what the locomotive is and represent.

Robby Peartree

M Austin

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:44 am

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 amPosts: 416

Yea, what Rick R. just said.

MSLRR

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:29 am

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:34 amPosts: 18

Dennis Storzek wrote:

On the other hand, the engines in tourist railway service aren't really preserved either. As the decades roll by, they will be re-boilered with welded boilers, with welded in stays, receive roller bearings and strange new exhaust nozzles, and carry welded tenders with fake applique rivet heads, all in the interest of making them "better." They may still look like steam locomotives, but will have as much connection to their history as the Crown in the amusement park.

Of all the different organizations under the broad category of railway preservation, very few are sensitive to keeping things original, and fewer still are willing to spend the funds to do so.

Some of those changes you are complaining about are driven by state and federal laws with respect to operation of boilers.

MSLRR

Post subject: Re: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:38 am

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:34 amPosts: 18

Robby Peartree wrote:

DC When EP&SW #1 was restored it was both a loss and an opportunity. The locomotive has been little touched by human hands over its life and that showed one part of its history. With the restoration it received was not a hole sale butcher job but a carefully worked out plan of what needed to be done. The locomotive looks different today from what we discovered about it in the process. It will never run again, It should not run again given the 6 inch crack in its original boiler. Replacing such would destroy a lot of the significant fabric. So it wont pull an polar express but it will still tell a story and more generations in my view will have a better view of the past because those involved in its restoration chose to spend time and careful analysis of what the locomotive is and represent.

You're advocating to just stuff and mount everything on a plinth denying future generations the ability to fully experience the technology and culture inherent in the locomotive.

You also assume that the railroads didn't modify ANY of their engines while in service. Is every engine EXACTLY the same as it was built?

On the other hand, the engines in tourist railway service aren't really preserved either. As the decades roll by, they will be re-boilered with welded boilers, with welded in stays, receive roller bearings and strange new exhaust nozzles, and carry welded tenders with fake applique rivet heads, all in the interest of making them "better." They may still look like steam locomotives, but will have as much connection to their history as the Crown in the amusement park.

Of all the different organizations under the broad category of railway preservation, very few are sensitive to keeping things original, and fewer still are willing to spend the funds to do so.

Some of those changes you are complaining about are driven by state and federal laws with respect to operation of boilers.

NONE of the things I listed are driven by regs. Riveted boilers are still legal under ASME code, even for new construction. Threaded staybolts are still allowed. Locomotives that run on your own track can certainly still have solid bearings, and no one regulates exhaust nozzles at all. All of these things are being applied to supposedly preserved locomotives because: 1) It's cheaper. 2) it will run longer before I have to inspect it. 3) I want to make it "better"4) It's easier.

Now, these things certainly have their place in a replica, but why turn a historic artifact into a replica? The engine in the linked video is a replica, but a faithful one. Would it be the same if it had roller bearings, Lempor exhaust, and 26L brakes?

Post subject: ModeratorRe: Preservation or destruction of an artifact?

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:33 am

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:15 pmPosts: 1326Location: Henderson Nevada

This discussion has elements of name calling... and as noted is calling up 13 year old posts on another forum. This is not acceptable here.

I note early on arguments about the construction of D&RGW K-37 locomotives... For example, whether the frames were or were not Baldwin supplied. To some extent, this was a series of "I heard" without the research (which takes time and effort) again, not our preferred way of discussing a significant issue.

On the other hand, the discussions of consumption of an artifact by operation, how to care for a locomotive, the cumulative effects of changes on a operating locomotive are very appropriate here...

For now I am only warning the board. I have considered trying to delete the name calling, but for now won't in the interest of keeping this thread alive.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum